I, like other typically politically inactive citizens, come from (and am trying to move away from) a position ov complacency and belief in the good will ov all men. This complacency leads to being taken advantage ov and, in turn, bitching about political outcomes that directly affect one’s life. The thing that I think make’s Erik’s “platform” so exigent at this moment ov over-arching apathy is his desire to actually find out, and not GUESS what a good decision is. Not one ov the candidate’s answers to these questions come from a deep understanding (or, perhaps, caring about) ov the current failings ov democracy at large.
I believe the accusation ov under-researched opinions is flawed, and would like an explanation. Regardless, it won’t change the fact that it’s his attitude alone that won my vote over the other candidates.
Everyone wants change, but most don’t care enough to defeat their own sinful complacency or the system’s sinful bureaucracy. I believe MacKinnon’s heartfelt desire to amend the suffering ov the common apathetic (though he may not put it that way) will bring about some ov the realest change UBC has witnessed in a long time.

As I have already tweeted, I wanted to thank you for your lucid, insightful analysis and for posting the rationale behind your questions. (Aside: Blacking out the text was a good idea but if one copies and pastes from the PDF, one may view the answers without very much difficulty.)

It concerns me deeply, however, the ways in which you have rhetorically constructed yourself and your perceived ideal conception of a student representative to the Board of Governors (BoG). I believe you are reifying what makes a “winning” candidate, working prescriptively rather than descriptively. By doing so, you are (perhaps unknowingly) legitimizing a structure in which only those students who fit the criteria you (and others like you) have established can be considered seriously, even as viable candidates. I believe that this contributes to a democratic deficit in which individuals with verve, heart, and outstanding work ethic are made to feel inadequate and incompetent.

This should not be so. For it really cannot. This is what plagues the AMS and will always do so until we shift our paradigms.

I am speaking in the abstract here — I will seek to use an illustrative example. Two years ago, you were running for BoG for the first time. You were absent for your debates for (what I believe were) very legitimate reasons though you did send a cardboard cutout in your place. Voters could have chosen among you, Guillaume, and Blake. (Azim, I assume, was assuredly safe.)

As a writer for the UBC Spectator, I was happy to see that we chose to endorse you at the time. You demonstrated, verve, heart, and a willingness to learn and work hard. We never asked if you could name Reny or Hubert. We didn’t need you to qualify your professional credentials. We didn’t even need you to be physically present at the debates. We just wanted someone with goodness, not necessarily greatness.

And I don’t think we were alone. I am going to take the risk and say that people voted for you not because of your astounding memory for minutes or your insight into the finer nuances of endowment fund structures but because they believed you were doing this for all the right reasons. They believed that you had the right skills, some relevant experience, and the ability to learn fast, and work hard. But above all, you were elected (as we have all been at some point) because people believed that we could genuinely effect change at this place of mind.

That you are adjudicating us candidates on criteria you would be hard-pressed to apply to yourself two years ago is, I think, patently unfair.

At the risk of allegedly “slate-like” behaviour, I want to draw attention to the fact that every person who is running in the elections for BoG affirms his/her personal commitment to working very hard for students. I am disinclined to believe that I am unlucky to have run this year nor do I believe it is a legitimate “weakness.” As much as anyone, I demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the issues, I work very hard for students, and I am willing to learn very quickly if elected. You damn some, including me, with faint praise and others with masked scorn.

Every candidate listed here is courageous and hopeful. Courageous for daring to put his/her name out for public scrutiny and criticism; hopeful for believing that students can genuinely and positively effect change on this campus. Every person listed here has the potential to be just as, if not more, effective as you were on the BoG.

In this spirit, I respectfully submit this comment, decline your non-endorsement, and celebrate my fellow candidates.

To Erik: the electoral process isn’t just a contest of personalities, it’s also a contest of ideas. I really respect the way that you recognise that preconceptions are not always the best thing to stand by once elected, as they may not reflect the general will of students. It is absolutely critical that any governor be willing to change their stance on issues when it becomes apparent students are not on-board, or there is new information. We should not be ideologues. However, by being up front about our ideas in the electoral campaign, we do give students the very real choice to reflect what they want to see on the Board.

This contest shouldn’t just be about personalities; it should be about ideas, and how we can push student’s interests on the BoG. That’s why I issued my challenges to other candidates (http://cregten.wordpress.com/challenges/), and that`s why we had such a productive debate last Friday.

Issues and debate. That`s what we`re here for, and that`s what we have to do (successfully, and in student`s interests) on the BoG.

One comment that I will make is that your assessment of me very accurately shows the fundamental difference between how you (and other recent BoG reps) view the elected student representatives’ job on the Board and how I do.

Personally, I’m not of the belief that it’s the right approach for a candidate or representative to develop/state his or her opinion and then find a bunch of people that approve of that opinion. Yes – you’re elected on the will of some few thousands of people that bother to cast a ballot; I will challenge that a small percentage of those even know (or care) what your “platform” is.

Where I believe that past representatives have completely faceplanted is in the realization that your job engaging students does not stop with getting elected. As an elected representative of 47,000 students, it’s not your job to cater to the handful that bothered to vote for you – it’s your job to engage as many of the rest of them as is possible, to join the conversation and to contribute in their own way.

This is why I have stated time and time again that it’s entirely moot to have a “platform” in the BoG race, and that candidates that are coming in with their own personal agendas are doing an incredible disservice to the rest of the student body. I’m running on my vast array of experience in the business, academic, non-profit and other worlds, which provides me with the acumen to sit at the table as a peer and the strength to create real change. I don’t want students to vote for me because I currently believe Opinion X about Issue Y, but because they have confidence that I will consult with them and act on their behalf in a responsible manner.

Take any issue affecting our campus: Gage South, Municipal/(Other) Governance, Student/Faculty/Staff Housing, Transportation, etc. Some other candidate might say “Hey! I have X opinion on this issue, and I was elected with that opinion so that’s what I’ll push at the Board.” I’m not like that. My response is “Hey, this is a pretty important issue! I’m going to research this, find out the facts, and then raise these points with as many students as possible to find out what they think!” Case in point: how I went after the AMS with their absurd 30% mid-term executive salary increase. Find out the objective facts, lay them out for students, and then carefully consider which is the “right” decision. Finally, have the intestinal fortitude to act, regardless of the minor dings your political capital might take.

The TL;DR: I don’t claim to represent 47,000 voices with my personal values, beliefs or “platform”, because it’s far better to be elected by students that are confident that you will consult with them before you act on their behalf. What I DO claim is that I am the *only* BoG candidate that has proven time and time again that I will bring major issues to light and ensure that every voice that wants to speak is heard and considered.

Our elected Board of Governors reps are all that we have at the top level to defend student interests and to make students a part of the future of this campus. If they aren’t massively engaged in asking every one of the 47,000 of us here, listening to answers and acting on what they have heard, they have absolutely failed in their role.

UBC Student: If this is the kind of person you want representing you on the Board, then vote for Erik MacKinnon.